 |
| Image: ClassicBattletech.com |
JZ: "For a scenario book that is supposed to be an introduction to Battletech for new players, there are a lot of problems that only an experienced player would know how to deal with."A lot of problems indeed. This book is intended as a sort of bridge between the Boxed Set and Total War rules, but it assumes players already know the full rules. Many missions descriptions are also quite vague as to exactly how they are supposed to be set up. Our veteran crew and GM take these problems in stride, but it would be difficult for new players to figure these things out.
The book could have done with more playtesting too, and mea culpa, I was one of the playtesters! My recollection is hazy, but we only had 18 days - enough for proofreading, but nowhere near enough time to play many missions. This also came at a busy time for most of our group, and I don't recall that we played any of these missions. This may also be a problem of having veteran players review a product intended for new players; the bugs that will trip up new players are nearly invisible to players that have been playing the game for years.
Errata problems aside, there are issues with the scenario tracks too. An inexperienced player could easily run out of WarChest Points (WP) with just a few unwise decisions. Taking the wrong combination of force and mission options (plus a little bad luck) turned into a big setback for our Sabres players. Now it's OK if players run out of WP, but I don't see how inexperienced players could avoid running into trouble. These scenarios really need an experienced gamemaster to supervise and help keep the players on a steady course.
There is another issue with these missions that is quickly becoming apparent; the scenario balance is just awful. If you play with the original mechwarriors and mechs from the book, and if the opposing force gets a few good rolls of the dice during the setup, then some of these missions can be challenging. --BUT-- If you are playing (as we are) where mechs can "lightly" modified with prototype weapons and upgrades, or replaced with other mechs purchased or captured, then the scenarios become heavy unbalanced in favor of the Teeth/Sabres sides.
I must admit my bias: I like well balanced scenarios because they are the most fun. I have been playing Battletech long enough that simply winning has little attraction for me - I want a challenge, because challenges are fun! Winning is still cool, but I want to win in a fair fight, not in some goofball setup where one side has no real chance to win (Our group even have a special name for these sort of scenarios). Consider how the following aspects of the Sword and Dragon missions lead to unbalanced scenarios:
- Random opposition selection is highly variable, and the players could be up against a tough fight. This encourages them to ALWAYS field the strongest lance of mechs available, even when a weaker lance might be able to pull it off with a little luck.
- There are heavy penalties for not accomplishing mission objectives, so players are again encouraged to field a very powerful force, even if they might get by with less, simply because they cannot afford to lose.
- Random force selection does not consider that players may have upgraded their force. Even if the scenario might have been balanced originally, any improvements players make with push this towards unbalanced missions.
I know I am asking for a lot. Computer games might be be able to adapt to players in this way, but can a boardgame possibly do this? The answer is yes, after a fashion. In a series of Battletech scenarios, there is no reason you couldn't have measure of performance or margin of victory, and use this to adjust the difficulty of future scenarios. To do this you need to start with a good way to rate the strength of force and opposition, which is one of the reasons I keep going on and on about point balance systems. You would also need a way to measure margin of victory over a series of scenarios. Chess, basketball, and many other games have ratings of skill and ability as measured by their performance against other players or teams. You could do this for Battletech too, with a bit of work. Finally, instead of just rewarding players for winning, make the rewards contingent on the difficulty of scenario they choose. Given the choice of an easy win or a challenging game, I think players will go for the challenge every time.
Hint: This is a topic I hope to spend some time with in 2011 (now where did I leave my notes?).
I should add a comment about scenario objectives, since there were some recent comments about objectives and balance in my recent post on Point Values for Squadron Strike. Sword and Dragon does use scenario objectives, but most of them are useless for maintaining any sort of balance, and some actually make it worse. A way to rate the difficulty of scenario objectives is something else I'm going to have to consider (and that's a tough one!).
And here is a bit of copyright info, just to make sure everyone is happy.
© 2001-2010 The Topps Company, Inc. MechWarrior, BattleMech, ‘Mech and AeroTech are registered trademarks of The Topps Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
13 comments:
Battle value might be the first thing a person would use - but unfortunately, despite going through at least two iterations, BV still does not reflect the real effect gunnery skill has on the game. A pilot in an Inner Sphere medium 'Mech with a 2/3 rating will run rings around a Clan pilot who is 4/5 in an assault 'Mech.
There is something about that -2 which really tips the balance, one reason Pink is unhappy with the pulse weapons.
No one I know blames the playtesters. I certainly think you could have done a better job. After all, you had three months. And you were single and getting paid to do it - as were your fellow gamers. Furthermore, the game's writers and designers were waiting eagerly for the input they requested from fellow employees whose judgement they respected. As soon as that data was ready, they were going to act on it and correct what everyone knew to be a fundamental flaw - THAT THE SUPPLEMENT WAS UNPLAYABLE BY ITS TARGET AUDIENCE!
Oh wait. That was in an alternate universe. My bad.
I wonder what they have been smoking over there at CGL for the past few years. There is a serious disconnect between what they have been producing and what the real world requires of a game.
Whoa! There was this huge surge in the sarcasm capacitors that almost blew out my stats meter ...
... it seemed to correspond with Steven's post. ;-)
I live in my own alternate world where I think math can be applied so solve difficult and fun problems. We all have our fantasies!
I want to live in your world! Unfortunately, I flunked pre-calculus. But I swing a mean soldering iron! Good luck with your game. I heartily wish your review had been available a while back - say, before they actually committed the StarterBook to actual paper. It was concise and not only pointed out the problems, it suggested solutions.
Sarcasm only goes so far, and I think the boys over at CGL have built up an immunity...
A good, open and honest review. I like it. I tend to think that the product was probably as good as it could be given the nature of the beast, namely play-testing time limitations. I especially like the three points you made.
The tough fight scenario really needs to put players into a dilemma of choosing to win one fight now, but loose others later, or more to the point taking a small chance of losing all versus an equal chance of winning all. I imagine something that links into the urge to gamble would be required.
As for the penalties for not accomplishing missions this seems to me to require some sort of other carrot. Perhaps looking at games that deal with assymetrical warfare might help e.g: TooFat Lardies "Charlie Don't Surf"?
Finally, perhaps this is tied to point two, and giving more, or making it easier way for the other side to get points and therefore win?
Just some random thoughts.
I would make one suggestion, but it seems like something only experienced GMs would consider. The random factor seems to be one of the main problems here - why not use what you've created via the dice and then add/subtract forces until you get something challenging but not totally overwhelming?
Again, that seems like something an experienced hand would do, not a new player eager to make the leap from the boxed set to the 'big leagues'. So maybe it's not such a good idea after all.
@Steven: You live here already! :-)
@Ashley: From what I can tell, "Charlie Don't Surf" uses different sets of objective for each side. This is the other way to balance scenarios, by giving each player different goals. For a game like Batletech will probably require a game master to work this. Still, I might have to pick up this game and see how they work it.
@Both: You are on the right track. There should be a random element not unlike gambling - where are odds of winning are at least approximately known, so the players can be rewarded according to the risks they take. WOrking out the math for all this is ... well let's just say there are a few kinks to work out yet. ;-)
What about eliminating the "third party" forces and having only the two player elements involved???
At this rate we will be forming a Cabal of like minded Battletech gamers.
@Nunya B: I wasn't troubling myself with third parties yet, because that is an even more difficult problem to solve, especially if the third party is a free agent that may attack whomever they wish. This turns into a game theory problem, which is a different animal altogether. If you ever play multi-player games with "every person for themselves" victory conditions, you see all manner of alliances and betrayals take place as each player evaluates how they can best win the game (eg: "Diplomacy").
@Ashley: Aren't we already a cabal of like minded Battletech players? ;-)
The Review at BGG mentions the third party I meant.
http://giantbattlingrobots.blogspot.com/2010/12/battletech-sword-and-dragon-sessions.html#comments
"You could do this with either two players or teams - I'll describe them as if you had just two players: each player chooses a side - either Davion or Kurita, and takes control of that company. Then, the players alternate controlling their company with controlling the opposition for the other player. So, you might begin by playing Sorenson's Sabers on a recon mission, opposed by some random militia force, which your friend would control. Then your friend would get to play the Fox's Teeth as they went on an assault mission, whilst you played their opposition."
Perhaps removing those random militia forces would make it less complicated to balance things out.
If the two house forces are the only involved then you can balance out the two companies to start. As the campaign progress a salvage system could allow upgrades without being two excessive. A second balancing effect could be some form of reinforcements for the losers. The back-story could somehow justify these reinforcements. Like a rear area supply cache to draw from to get back up to strength...?
NB: What BGG link? I don't think you posted the one you meant to post.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/232940/getting-back-into-battletech
My mouse is fired. :)
Ah that Cabal. The first rule of the cabal is we don't talk about the cabal.
Post a Comment